512 ALLEN «. BURKE.—1 BLAND.

The Act of 1820, ch. 161, it is evident, was intended to provide
a course of proceeding by which any party who had a right to
revive a suit that had abated, in the manner specified, before a
final decree, might have it revived in a mode less expensive and
dilatory than in the common way by a bill of revivor. It is mani-
fest, that the general object of that law was to shorten and invigo-
rate the * proceedings in Chancery. It certainly cannot be
545 considered as embracing any cases of abatement after a
decree; because its phraseology expressly refers to cases which
have not been brought to a termination, and to suits where "such
final decree as to right shall appertain." remains to be made; and
also, because it could not have been the intention of the Legisla-
ture to provide a new mode of proceeding more expensive and less
energetic than one already well established; as is the case In suits
abating by the death of a party after a decree.

According to the course of proceeding in Chancery, where a party
dies, or a female plaintiff marries, after the final decree has been
enrolled, such decree and proceedings must be revived by a sub-
poena scire facias. Which mode of reviving a suit, however, can
only be pursued by or against the heir, the legal representatives,
or those who are privy in blood or contract to the deceased party;
and who, as such, may be benefited or bound by the decree; but
they are precluded from going into its merits: and upon the same
principles the merits of the decree cannot be questioned even on a
bill in nature of a bill of revivor by an assignee or a devisee.
Dunn v. Alien, 1 Vern. 283 & 426: Owen v. Curzon, 2 Vern. 237;
Clare v. Wordell, 2 Vern. 548; Mimhull v. Lord Mohun, 2 Vern. 672.
If the party summoned fails to shew cause, or the cause shewn
should be deemed insufficient, he may, if lequired. be examined
on interrogatories as to any matter necessary to the proceedings.
But where there have been any proceedings subsequent to the de-
cree, this process will be ineffectual, as it revives the decree only
and nothing more. Mitf. Plea. 70. It is said, that in England it
has become the practice to revive in all cases indiscriminately by
bill, because of its having become unusual to enroll decrees; but
in Maryland all decrees are considered as enrolled so soon as they
are signed. Hollingsworth v. McDonald, 2 H. & J. 237. And con-
sequently, a bill of revivor, or this mode of reviving a suit, which
has abated after a decree, by a subpoena set re facias, must be con-
sidered as the most regular, if not in fact the only modes by which
a suit can properly be revived in this Court. Croster v. Wister, 2
Rep. Chan. 67; Wharam v. Broughton, 1 Ves. 181; White v. Hay-
ward, 2 Ves. 461; Fallows v. Williamson, 11 Ves. 307.

A subpoena set re facias may be obtained by petition, and must
be served like a subpoena to answer. On its appearing by the re-
turn , that the process has been made known, and the party regu-
larly summoned, if no cause be shewn to the contrary, nor any plea